People v Waters

Annotate this Case
People v Waters 2014 NY Slip Op 05565 Decided on July 30, 2014 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on July 30, 2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
JEFFREY A. COHEN
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2012-02197
(Ind. No. 11-00580)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Keleik Waters, also known as Khaleik Waters, appellant.



Gerald Zuckerman, Ossining, N.Y., for appellant.

Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Steven A. Bender and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Hubert, J.), rendered February 2, 2012, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and possession of burglar's tools, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the County Court abused its discretion in allegedly refusing to accept his plea of guilty and in failing to afford him the opportunity to enter an Alford plea (see North Carolina v Alford, 400 US 25) is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]). In any event, this contention is without merit, as the record demonstrates that the defendant unequivocally declined to enter a plea of guilty and never requested permission to enter an Alford plea.

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Hurley, 75 NY2d 887; People v Seymore, 106 AD3d 1033, 1034) and, in any event, without merit.

MASTRO, J.P., DICKERSON, COHEN and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.